This blog explores climate change impacts on nature, strategies that humans can use to help nature adapt to climate change, academia, science education, and environmental policy

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Science in the crosshairs: the public role of science and scientists--a reply

I delivered the following comments today as a reply to a conference presentation by Ken Miller (Brown University). Maybe these comments will stimulate thinking by others on the topic of science and public outreach. I'm not a scholar in this area, but I have spent some time thinking about how I plan to negotiate the public sphere as a scientist myself.

Miller's title: "Science in the Crosshairs: the public role of science and scientists"

Overview

I agree with Dr. Miller that many scientists shy away from
the limelight implied by the term “public intellectual,” preferring that data
carry the public debate over personality and sound bites. But I want to spend my few minutes suggesting that this disinterested
view has serious short-comings, and I want to suggest another type of public
scientist, one mentioned but not expanded upon by Dr. Miler. This other type of
scientific public intellectual is one who has a seat at the table of democratic
decision-making. Like Dr. Miller mentioned for role of scientific popularizer,
I think this policy-engaged scientist has been undervalued or unappreciated by
fellow scientists, by academia, and by politicians. I hope that this can begin
to change, and there fortunately are several role models who are leading the
way.

Definition of “scientist”

First, when I refer to “scientist,” I am thinking primarily
of academics or government individuals with PhDs in natural science who pursue
or oversee some original research in the natural sciences. This participation
in the research process and in the scientific literature provides topical
expertise. One can find scientists in other roles, of course, such as in
non-governmental organizations, and my thinking may or may not apply to them,
depending on the degree to which they pursue research and how much they
advocate for particular outcomes.

Information deficit—a
model debunked

To argue for my view of the scientific public intellectual,
I first have to dispose of the passive view that science by itself can affect
social outcomes. The view that information alone when presented to those who
“need” it will catalyze change, innovation, or progress has been roundly
disproven. Known as the information deficit model, it assumes that the public
has insufficient knowledge about science and that public opinion would be
swayed if only people were supplied with reliable and accurate information
about nature. But more information often does not change people’s views because
opinions are often formed by intuition, religious belief, personal experience,
and other cultural and psychological factors. This implies a need from more
steady engagement by scientists to interweave scientific information with these
other opinion sources.

We can see belief in the information deficit model in much of
science communication and science outreach, but many scientists do—myself included—dosee a more active role for science in social deliberations. In other words, it
is not just that science is relevant and could be informative in the right
hands but that science is a central and essential tool of public
problem-solving. A variety of data suggest that some key scientific issues are underappreciated,
misinterpreted or misconstrued, despite an abundance of data and countless
reports written for policymakers. For example, recent public surveys by the PewResearch Center suggest that 70% of Americans believe that average global
temperature is increasing, but there is a large partisan divide over whether
there is solid scientific evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gases are
causing modern climate change. 57% of Democrats think that recent climate
change is caused mostly by human activity, but only 19% of Republicans think
that. It appears that party membership affects one’s adherence to natural laws.
Much more engagement, probably with a wider range of people, appears necessary
to convince people about the state of scientific knowledge.

Politization of
science

At the same time, science in policy feels dangerous to many
scientists. The features that Dr. Miller described about science—uncertainty
and unending progress—implies that science never really knows anything, and this
makes it an easy political target. There is risk in saying “there is a 95%
chance”—some interest group unbound by the necessity of revealing its
assumptions and uncertainties can step in to fill a perceived certainty void. In
addition, scientists are often poor competitors in the public sphere. For
example, they often lead with the details instead of the main conclusions, and
they don’t have much practice speaking in a non-technical language. Scientistsmust find ways to simply communicate but not mislead. This is hard to do in the
era of the sound bite, dueling cable channels, and social media. Thus, being an
effect participant in the social dialog on science takes time, training and
practice.

Scientists as valued
stakeholders, not “deciders”

In my argument for scientists as policy participants, I’m
not saying that scientists should be the “deciders.” I agree with Dr. Miller
that scientists have no more knowledge about right and wrong, just or unjust,
than anyone else (and, in fact, they might be quite uneducated on some of these
issues). But I do believe that science should have a seat the social table.

In other words, I am not arguing scientists should have the
last word on climate change, the Keystone XL pipeline, or childhood
vaccinations, for example. But I do feel that scientific insights, embodied by individual
scientists that we might call public intellectuals, should be an integral part
of social debate. The should engages not as outside consultants who pop in and out
with their data—the information deficit model—but as knowledgeable experts,
armed with a useful philosophical method—the scientific method—that has been
shown to have social value for millennia.

In my view, the public intellectual should not craft or
advocate for particular policies but offer a sustained voice that raises key
issues and keeps an emphasis on scientific issues that affect the public
interest. They also can help to analyze the efficacy of particular policy
tools. The policy environments in which scientist can—and I think should—engage
do not need to be highly charged, and they could be narrow or broad in scope. But
the hallmark is engagement rather than consultation.

Necessary institutional
change

To achieve my view of the scientific public intellectual, a
couple of changes are necessary. I mention them briefly, but these changes are
not easy or quick. First, engagement has to be rewarded by the institutionsthat hire and employ scientists. Engaged scientists also need institutional
support so that they can sustain active research programs, because research directly
informs and continually shapes their expertise. Second—and perhaps more
importantly—we need some kind of political transformation that views science
and scientists as something other than another special interest group, with
knowledge and information that is just as good as the next voter or lobbyist.

Public intellectual role
models

Many scientists used to worry about being called a Carl
Sagan—someone more interested in TV ratings than pursuing scientific
discoveries, an ego looking for public validation. But this negative view of
public science figures is changing, particularly with the rise of more and more
role models who show it is possible to mix science with public education and outreach.
A few examples from my own field of environment and energy come to mind: JohnHoldren [physicist and science advisor to Pres. Obama], Jane Lubchenco
[ecologist and former head of NOAA], Paul Ehrlich [ecologist, author, and
public figure], Stephen Schneider [climatologist, author, and tireless popularize
of climate change and climate science], and Rachel Carson.

But these models are more than just popularizers. They are
more like medical clinicians, family doctors with information at hand and an
established method for obtaining and interpreting that information. The
doctor’s opinions should be adjudicated with other important voices, not just
as a popularizer or a thought-provoker but as a useful stakeholder that
improves the outcome of deliberation.

#####

On this subject, see also a recent panel at the University of Notre Dame conference, Climate Change and the Common Good about science as a public interest.

About Me

I am an Associate Professor of Biological Sciences and Fellow at the Notre Dame Institute of Advanced Study. I am blogging about a book I am writing on climate change, its implications for nature and wildlife, and ways that humans might help nature persist (and maybe even thrive) through climate change. You can follow me on Twitter too, @jessicahellmann.